Lets be frivalous for a moment...

[Johnney]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20031226/ap_on_re_us/toddler_s_claim_1


STAMFORD, Conn. - A 2-year-old model and actor who cut his head at a playground is seeking unspecified lost wages and other compensation from the city.



Konrad Mader of Greenwich was running toward a treehouse at a playground Nov. 4 when he crashed into a railing, according to a claim filed last week by his mother and reported Friday by The Advocate of Stamford. The blond toddler received several stitches.


Deena Mader, the boy's mother, did not specify how much she is seeking on behalf of her son.


In a letter to officials, she demanded compensation for medical bills, pain and suffering and a "lost wage amount due to his inability to audition or take modeling or commercial jobs while his head heals."


Mader blamed the boy's injury on a green railing, which she said blends in with the landscaping. Mader said the railing should be painted a brighter color.


"This accident was preventable had the railings and safety measures been correct at this park, " Mader wrote in her claim.


Tom Cassone, the city's director of legal affairs, said his office is investigating the claim.


Joe Falzone, a facilities manager in charge of maintaining city parks, said he is not aware of defects in the playground and there are no plans to make changes.

STAMFORD, Conn. - A 2-year-old model and actor who cut his head at a playground is seeking unspecified lost wages and other compensation from the city.

are you fucking kidding me!?!

 

[Moi]

Yet another stupid, litigious parent who should face child abuse charges if she pursues this claim. Not that I normally advocate child abuse charges for parents whose kids get injured, let's face it, kids DO GET INJURED!!!!! But if she is going to claim that the park was unsafe, the flip side of that coin is that she should be to blame for letting her kid play in an unsafe park!

Stupid bimbo.

 

[Johnney]

i was thinking along the same lines. i dont know how long that park has been there or what its current state is, but come on. if your taking your kids to it, especially if he/ she has some type of acting or modeling background, you may want to check it out and see if its safe.
but you know this is America

 

[acludem]

The only way there is a case here is if a reasonable person would not have seen the railing. My guess is there is no case. Mom wasn't paying attention and wants the city to pay for her screw-up.

 

[5stringJeff]

Let me come in with a devil's advocate argument...

When I was about 9, I was playing in a playground outside of my cousin's apartment commplex in Phoenix. They had one of those really big playsets with a bridge that connected the two sides - the kind of bridge with boards that dangeld down, held up by chains, making it wobbly and fun to go across. Anyway, I was chasing my cousin, and he ducked under this bridge. So I ducked under, and came up a little too soon, and damn near impaled my skull on a 3-inch bolt that was sticking out of the bottom of this bridge. The boards of this bridge - every last one of them - were bolted together with these things, making that bridge extremely unsafe. I still have a small scar on my head from that.

My point is that, while this claim does seem really frivolous, not all playgrounds are 100% "kidproof."

 

[eric]

A 2-year-old model and actor

This tells me something already. Hey lets pimp out our child for money, and if that does not work, hell we can always sue !

 

[nbdysfu]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
My point is that, while this claim does seem really frivolous, not all playgrounds are 100% "kidproof."
________________________
At my old elementary school when I was a kid we had one of those lumber fort-like playsets. Except it was homemade by some parents. There was this one part about twelve feet off the ground where was absolutely no railing. I guess there was supposed to be a slide or something but they must have run out of money. We'd spend the whole recess jumping off that platform and rolling down the hill. If you hit the ground chest first it would knock the wind out of you. Man that was some fun. Anyway some weakling came along and got injured, and they took the whole thing down, cry, cry, cry.

 

[Johnney]

but the thing is, if her kids is some kind of cash cow... why wasnt she paying more attention to him?
your never going to child proof a play ground 100%. there has to be some type of parental monitoring some place.

 

[injury]

Another example why I think we should get a loser pays legal system in this country. Basically I imagine this will be settled out of court with the tax payers' money going to pay for this mother to drive a new lexus.

I thought all children were supposed to be supervised on playgrounds anyways...where was this mothers eyes? Did she not walk around the playground first before letting her color blind child loose on it? Was this a real tree camo style beam?

All the green park paint I've seen everywhere doesn't blend in with anything except a gright green crayon. Not to mention having happened on Nov. 4 in Conn...isn't all the green stuff dead for the winter by then?

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
Let me come in with a devil's advocate argument...

When I was about 9, I was playing in a playground outside of my cousin's apartment commplex in Phoenix. They had one of those really big playsets with a bridge that connected the two sides - the kind of bridge with boards that dangeld down, held up by chains, making it wobbly and fun to go across. Anyway, I was chasing my cousin, and he ducked under this bridge. So I ducked under, and came up a little too soon, and damn near impaled my skull on a 3-inch bolt that was sticking out of the bottom of this bridge. The boards of this bridge - every last one of them - were bolted together with these things, making that bridge extremely unsafe. I still have a small scar on my head from that.

My point is that, while this claim does seem really frivolous, not all playgrounds are 100% "kidproof."

Although I agree with the sentiment that not all playgrounds are 100% kidproof, let's face it, life isn't ever going to be 100% kidproof. What right does she have to get money from taxpayers because her son can't go on auditions? That's ridiculous. If she were so concerned for her child's safety and she thinks the park was such a danger, she should not have left him unsupervised. And, yes, he was obviously unsupervised if she wasn't in arm's reach of him and he could hit his head hard enough on a bar to do so much damage- NO 2 year old should have been allowed to play on equipment. There isn't a playset in this world on which you can guarantee the safety of a 2 year old.

She's a moron twice, once for abrogating her parental resopnsibility to the "town" and allowing him to be injured and twice for suing because of his injury.

 

[Johnney]

Well this is obviously America. One doesnt have to be responsible for ones self, or actions, and by this lawsuit, be responsible for the welfare of their offspring. this jsut sickens me because its not the city thats going to pay if she should win. there goes everyones taxes because she wasnt paying attention.
like i said before, what was her cash cow doing wandering around unsupervised?

 

[DKSuddeth]

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/l...dec30,0,3929925.story?coll=ny-linews-featured

December 30, 2003


There's no use crying over spilled milk, but hot coffee is a whole other matter.

In a case with echoes of a famous suit against McDonald's, a Glen Cove woman has filed a $10-million claim against Starbucks, alleging she was badly burned by coffee that leaked from the container.

On the morning of May 5, Janine Arslanian bought coffee from Starbucks at 5 School Street in Glen Cove, according to court papers initially filed in October in the State Supreme Court and later moved to federal court in Central Islip. The suit says that as Arslanian received the cup, coffee "leaked and flowed from the container on the bare right hand and arm ... causing her to sustain severe burns" and suffer "permanent injury and scarring." The suit describes the injury as "extensive and gross second and third degree burns to her right hand and arm."

Arslanian would not comment on her lawsuit, and her lawyer did not return calls. A Starbucks spokeswoman said, "It is Starbucks policy not to provide details or comments on pending or current litigation."

This is not the company's first such lawsuit. At least four similar cases have been filed in Manhattan, Palm Beach, Fla., and San Francisco, the first in 1998. In fact, a Manhattan jury awarded another Glen Cove woman $3.5 million in January 2002 for burns she suffered on her right hand when steam and coffee exploded from a Starbucks espresso machine, according to an Associated Press report.

Dawn Samperisi was reportedly injured Feb. 25, 1999, during a demonstration at the Glen Cove Starbucks when an employee didn't properly lock in the filter that holds the coffee grounds. The jury originally voted to award her $4.6 million, but it then held her partially liable and lowered the award. Her lawyer wasn't available to comment.

Starbucks noted in a statement that it serves 25 million customers a week and, "This was a very unusual incident and Starbucks has not received any claims of this specific nature since this occurrence in February 1999. Samperisi experienced a minor burn to her hand that developed into a rare syndrome."

The issue of litigation and hot coffee became famous in 1994 when a New Mexico jury awarded more than $2 million to Stella Liebeck, who was burned by McDonald's coffee at a drive-through window after she placed the cup between her legs. A judge later reduced the bulk of the award to $480,000, and the case was then settled out of court for an undisclosed amount. Nevertheless, it helped fuel a national debate on whether consumer lawsuits were out of control and ought to be restricted.

The problem is that "what's pleasant in the mouth is hot enough to cause damage to the skin," says Ted Lingle, executive director for the California-based Specialty Coffee Association of America, of which Starbucks is a member, explaining that the tongue has much denser tissue than the skin. He says consumer studies have found coffee drinkers expect the beverage to be served between 160 and 180 degrees.

Starbucks said in a statement that it brews its coffee at 195-205 degrees Fahrenheit and stores it at 175-185 degrees. It serves in cups that say, "Careful, the beverage you're about to enjoy is extremely hot."

"The packaging is much better than its ever been," said Lingle, adding, "I think both Starbucks and McDonald's have been prime targets simply because of their corporate size and deep pockets."

Trial lawyer Michael Levine at Rappaport Glass Greene & Levine in Melville, said that before McDonald's lost its 1994 case, more than 700 people burned by its coffee made claims. He says the temperature has since been reduced.

"We don't bring a case because somebody has deep pockets," said Levine, a member of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. "If a case doesn't have merit, it will be dismissed."

 

[MtnBiker]

Oh come one, a leak from a cup and she wants millions. I can't tell you how many times I spilled coffee while driving and all I expected was a stained shirt. And the lawsuit with McDonalds I never did agree with, if she was careless enough to put hot coffee by her hoohaa she was taking her own chances.

 

[Moi]

A few notes on the Starbucks article:

1. if you are injured because someone improperly operated the equipment, okay, perhaps you have a valid claim. But let's face it, MILLIONS???? I don't think so. The best you should be able to achieve is your costs for medical and lost wages (if any). I don't think there are many of us who never make mistakes- are we expected to pay damages if we have an accident at our jobs.

2. The guy from the trial lawyer association stating that they never make claims unless there's merit is an idiot. Frivolous claims happen everyday- some even make it to court and win!

3. The woman who put hot coffee between her legs should have been laughed out of court.

4. This new woman should be laughed out of court.

I just don't see why people in this country don't realize why american business is going overseas...

 

[Johnney]

this is why were going down the tubes, bull shit like this. if your not bright enough to figure out the hot coffee that was jsut poured is actually hot, then you deserve whatever you get, regardless of where you hold your cup.
i damned near sut my thumb off with a box cutter a few months back, maybe i should sue the Stanley comnpany for not warning me it was sharp?

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Next, a movie will be made about the boy's "tragedy."
Trial scene included!

 

[Moi]

Originally posted by X.P. Alidocious
Next, a movie will be made about the boy's "tragedy."
Trial scene included!

Hey, welcome back. Haven't seen you for a while!

 

[X.P. Alidocious]

Thanks Got caught up in my studies, but I'm on break for now
and its good to be back!